are those see-thru italian shorts?

>>212555982
>be me at 15
>gf comes over
>get to have my dick sucked for the first time
>get to lick some pussy too
>go straight onto black ops to scream nigger on the mic after she leaves
>put charlie's interview on in the background for max lolz
good times

i love everyone and i dont want anyone to fight or be sad

i love everyone and i dont want anyone to fight or be sad

>be me
>boss asks me anything
>GPT, how do I ...?
>keep trying GPT shit and failing because it's stupid
>don't care, waste a whole month on a simple project
>boss sends DOGE-style email "What have you been doing all month?"
>send email to GPT and print of conversations: this is what I've been doing all month, write a response to my boss, khx
>ai took my jerb but I'm still getting paid
>mfw

I've been reading F.A Hayek's book on the perils of socialism. I reached a chapter where he was discussing liberty and safety, claiming that if you were to give up your liberty in favor of safety, that it could potentially be something negative. At first, I didn't really understand what he meant by safety, later on, I realized that he was referring to concepts such as social security, rather than safety in its broader definition. He used Benjamin Franklin's quote that said something along the lines of ''if someone gives up liberty for safety, he deserves neither liberty nor safety''. I was confused at first as to what it meant, so I talked to Grok about it and got it cleared up. It seemed as though even Grok wasn't very much able to explain exactly what he meant, though. I had to go back and forth between referring to the context of the book, the adaptation of the quote to suit something contemporary, and even had to remind Grok that it was a book about politics and economy, so if you were to mention ''safety'' as something broad, such as safety against physical harm, that the quote would not even as much as have been brought up in the context of the book. It took a while but eventually Grok agreed with me and apparently the conclusion I eventually came to after reading that chapter was not incorrect. It felt pretty good to have read that chapter at first and not understanding it, only to a few days later of thinking about it, having it make sense. And not just understanding it, but even as much as having Grok agree with the fact that given the context, that it was indeed referring to the concept of accepting a type of social stability or income, over liberty. So, yeah, I've been reading some stuff, I guess.